Incredible

It was reported in the Whitefish Pilot Police Blotter on September 11, 2010, that a Whitefish woman was scared and disturbed enough to call the police after a political campaigner came to her door to pass out lit for a local house race while brandishing a firearm. The report came from Dakota Ave in Whitefish, which is in the house district that Derek Skees is campaigning to represent.

Distributing legislative campaign literature on homeowners’ private property while packing heat is a bad idea, but nonetheless it is endemic of the Tea Party mentality. These Republican posers are out of touch with main street Montana values, but the Skees campaign doesn’t appear to notice. Or maybe they just don’t care.

1) You have provided no evidence that the person was either republican or was working for Skees. Both are your assumptions alone.

2) Carrying a firearm is apparently legal in Whitefish given the responce of the police officer taking the call.

3) There is no evidence the person brandished the weapon or even called attention to the weapon in any way.

Now while I don’t necessarily condone a political activist obviously carrying while distributing literature (especially given how easy it is to get a concealed carry permit in this state), as the police responce made clear, no law was broken. Without further evidence, your assumptions give you no credibility. Posts like these are why I tend to take much of what you post with a grain of salt.

Clarification, as of the last legislature (MT) it is legal to open carry anywhere except protected travel points (airports, bus stations), protected state and federal buildings (and their grounds) and bars. Even bars are open to question; it just hasn’t been challenged yet. Whether it’s legal or not is beside4 the point. It’s just really f’ing stoopid.

Are you trying to tell me I broke the law when I open carried on the steps of the Capitol? And if you check the law, I believe you will find that open carry in a bar is legal and concealed carry is not.

I do agree that campaigning while open carrying is not the brightest thing to do – but I have seen pictures of clothing worn by candidates going door to door that were torn by dog attacks. Maybe pepper spray would be better.

The campaigner was campaigning for a local house candidate. The person lives in Skees district. Democrats don’t do this. There is no 3rd party candidate in the house race. The definition of brandish is “To display ostentatiously.” The homeowner was scared enough to call the police. I never said anything illegal occurred. So, you are right, it could have been someone accidentally campaigning in Whitefish when they meant to campaign in another town…

1) “Dems don’t do this” By “this” I take it to mean open carry. This is an assumption on your part without a shred of proof.

1) This person is dangerous and out of control. Your opinion. Nothing in your story indicates either.

Again, you offer no evidence or proof of your assumptions. I am quite aware of what the legal definition of Brandishment is and it certainly does NOT include open carry. As stated before, open carry is legal in most of Montana. Report away. Your assumption that the person is dangerous and out of control is just that.. your assumption. Once again, you are over-reacting.

You are asking me to prove your assumption. Not my job… Prove your own assumption.

In short, you are missing the point, Cowgirl and it directly relates to the credibility of your blog posts. You often posts things – assuming they mean what you think they mean – without proof or evidence. You assume that we will accept your assumptions without question.

A police report was made that someone campaigning for a state house seat showed up to someone’s home – and that that person was openly carrying a firearm. No law was broken because Open carry is legal in Montana (you do understand that even though you may not agree with something, it can still be legal, right?).

You assume that the person campaigning was 1) a Republican 2) working for Skees, and 3) a Tea Partier. None of these assumptions are supported by the report. You go on to assume that the person was the 3 above because “no dem would do that”. Again, an assumption. Many Dems have supported the right to purchase, own and carry firearms – it is the reason Montana has the most leanient firearms laws in the US.

I never said it was illegal, I said it was a bad idea. If you want to assert that someone else was accidentally campaigning in Skees district, which is the town of Whitefish, fine. That could be, as I have already said.

Again, you miss the point. I am not asserting anything – in fact, you were the one that stated it could have been someone working outside thier district, not me. I am simply pointing out that your assumptions are just that… assumptions. I prefer to work with facts. What makes your post distasteful is that you are using those assumptions to attempt to smear someone you don’t like. You insult your readers when you do that because you are saying we are too stupid to think for ourselves and you must point out our stupidity by supplying your own assumptions to the existing facts.

I don’t see them as logical deductions. There is no evidence to support your logic. The only evidence you present “Dems don’t do that” is, in and of itself, and assumption with absolutely no factual basis.

What you have done is make a conclusion and then attempt to make assumptions that fit your conclusion. That is not logical deduction. That is intellectual laziness. There is no evidence that the person was a republican, there is no evidence that the person worked for Skees and no evidence that the person was affiliated with the Tea Party. These are conclusions that you want us to buy into without proof.

A person shows up at my door and wants me to vote for a gun registration bill.

Now I could immedeately assume this person is a Democrat because “everyone” knows that “Democrats just want to take our guns away”.

That would be both an assumption and faulty reasoning. In truth, the person that did show up at my door was a Republican. He was also a member of the local Sheriff’s department and they were sponsoring the bill to aid in combatting gun crime.

Making a broad assumption based on your own bias is not “logical deduction” – is faulty reasoning. This post lacked credibility because of that kind of faulty reasoning. If you want to pin this on Skees, Republicans or the Tea Party, present factual evidence, not assumption.

“Why would dems be forwarding this around if they were the one’s doing it. Doesn’t make sense. Skees has publicly affiliated himself with the Tea Party”

Very simply – because they are making the same faulty assumptions you are. They are attempting to use this incident to “prove” something that it simply doesn’t prove. Until you can present further FACTUAL information on the incident, you are engaging in something that lacks credibility.

Ok first it is not illegal in the State of Montana to open carry a firearm in fact I do it on occassion when Im out in the back country and am either hunting, fishing or hiking or checking some cows so yes a ok. But I believe that to open carry a firearm in the city limits of a town like Whitefish is not ok now is concelled carry ok yes as long as that person has a permit issued by a county sheriff who did due dillegence before the permit was issued. But in todays day and age I do not believe it to be wise to carry a gun in open view in the limits of a municipality esspecially when you are campaigning for a public office. Now it is legal for me to go and get my hammer out of my tool box and start beating myself in the head with my hammer but is it wise I dont think so

No one said that “dems faked this event” – that is a strawman of your own making. I simply said you do not have enough facts to make the conclusions are you are making. I simply don’t understand why that concept is too hard for you to grasp. You seem reasonably intellegent…

Open carry is indeed legal in Montana, but once you trespass onto my private property you’re in violation of my own personal law that states any armed person entering my domain is a threat to my life and safety.
Using Montana’s new “castle doctrine” law (thanks, NRA) I’m fulling within my rights to hold that person at gunpoint until the police arrive, and pulling the trigger if he or she so much as twitches.

Actually, you are incorrect. First, it isn’t trespass until you ask the individual to leave and he doesn’t. Second, if the individual is not threatening you, the castle doctrine doesn’t apply. Open carry is not inherently a legal threat. If you pulled a gun on the individual, you are committing a crime unless the individual threatens you in some manner. You are NOT within your rights to hold the person at gunpoint and the individual could easily file both criminal and civil charges against you. I would suggest you look further into the laws you are attempting to quote.

One would have to be a complete asshole to carry a weapon to someone’s house while distrubiting campaign literature. Period. There is really no need to discuss this. The person that did this is simply an asshole. As JAyoung points out, you can indeed carry whatever in the hell you want to in a public place, but someone’s property is NOT your public place! It’s private property. Should you happen to get your dumbass shot, you deserve it. And should the homeowner be tried, I WANT to be on that jury. I say this as someone who loves guns and has a concealed carry permit.

No police report was made. The caller stated that someone campaigning had a pistol. So you are all drawing conclusions. If a police report was made then there would have been some evidence given to tie to a candidate. The report in the paper was nothing but a report of the calls to the police department. I will easily state that this could very well have been a fake call. A real call could have been made into a report. If you want to validate your claims please be sure to call the Whitefish Police department and ask. I did and was told that no report was made it was only a call to the department phone. No follow up was requested and no crime.

A Hard-Hitting Ad Appears in Whitefish « Montana Cowgirl Blog
September 29, 2010 at 11:48 am · Reply
[…] also puts in perspective a police report from Whitefish a few weeks ago, where a frantic woman called the cops because a campaign worker (almost certainly from the Skees campaign) knocked on her door […]

Part of the point of “open carry” is to start to remove the stigma: “whomever carries a weapon openly is wierd.”
One of the goals of campaigning should be to tell folks as much as possible about yourself in a short time. Is it possible that the person was not malicious? Could he have simply used “open carry”, and maybe other pins and ornaments on his person, in addition to his verbal conversation, to give the people he wants to serve the best and quickest view of him and what he might stand for?
Personally, I like a person who is truthful about who they are, allowing me to make an informed choice when voting. People who are so politically correct, that after conversing with them for 5 minutes, I know nothing about them, irritate me.
Is it possible this person wishes to portray his strong belief in the 2nd ammendment, and he is not so insecure that he is afraid to portray what he beleives? Maybe his ultimate goal is not just winning, but educating.
If he turned you off, he me may not win your vote. Thats ok. Maybe this event has served it’s purpose, stimulating awareness of gun laws.
Other thoughts provoked from this blog: Why is open carry more dangerous or “scary” than concealed carry? Isn’t knowing what you have in front of you, better than not knowing?
Personally, I have never felt like I need to carry a weapon when in the woods. There is really very little risk. However, these days, urban settings are a different story. Remember, it is ok if you don’t agree with me.

Carrying in the woods says nothing save to yourself. “I value my own ass over that of a bear, cougar or moose that would seek to damage me with extreme prejudice”. Or it says that you just like to shoot. No problem. Open carry in town conveys a message to the sentient beings you encounter, you know, those bipeds we call our fellow man? Open carry in this manner says one thing only: I have the right to be afraid. Well yes, yes you do. And good luck with that.

I’ve worked cash registers for people who were open carrying and I wasn’t scared, because hey, its legal and if you are gonna rob me, you’re not going to carry your weapon openly. But that doesn’t make it good etiquette. Taking a gun to a political conversation is like taking a gun to a drunken conversation – its bad manners and asking for misunderstandings. And I agree – normally an openly carried gun is safer because it generally means you don’t plan to use it, but that folks should know you’ve got it. But again, when you go into a conversation that will likely be heated, as in a campaign stop, its best to eliminate anything that could be threatening. (I’m not saying any particular campaign stop is likely to be heated, but if you do a couple dozen chances are you’ll run into a heated conversation at some point in the day.)

How can you even begin to comment on this! It is a rediculous argument. There was no police report, there was no crime, no evidance given to tie to the Skees camp and so this is nothing more than a smear. ANYONE can call the police and make a fake comlaint. If this was a real complaint, why did she not make a report? What is the description of the campaing supporter? Why automatically assign the blame to Skees? Because you are on a hunt to find anything to tie him to any trouble. You don’ even have a stake in this election. If you had then you would be like those of us in HD4 who have made a point to talk to both candidates. I am not voting for Will because he thinks that we are not smart enough to solve the economic trouble ourselves, but that we need government involvement. Skees believes that the electorate have the ability to self govern as the Republic of the United States of America was established.
Why not inform the Skees camp so they can investigate the alligation? WHY- because it was fake.